I have never been paid any money by any Government in my official capacity or because of my position as the Special Prosecutor as a judgment debt. Your intentional, malicious and deliberate defamatory words used to describe any payments to me of any part of the outstanding orders of the Court given on 4th September 2014 were understood by ordinary and right thinking members of the public to mean and you intended them to mean that the Government unlawfully had colluded with me in my capacity as the Special Prosecutor to dubiously pay me some money and other benefits resulting from Court orders.

The lies being bandied in the media should stop. I never consulted any person or political party before accepting my nomination to be put forward for approval as Special Prosecutor. Moreover, nobody is going to push or make me jump from the challenges of fighting public office corruption unless the Supreme Court declares the provisions of the Act under which I was appointed unconstitutional, I am impeached or I become convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the mutual promises and undertakings made with me at my nomination to fight the canker of corruption were not intended to be actualized in practice.

I wish Hon. Yaw Buaben Asamoa to understand that the Office of the Special Prosecutor is governed by statute and I am mandated to lead it in the achievement of that mandate. I do not need any direct or indirect instructions from any office holder of any political party like him. It is time for him and others like him from other political parties to stop confusing the fact that I was appointed by the President of the Republic to mean that it created a vested right in the political party which supported him to win the elections to instruct or direct me as the Special Prosecutor. I was appointed by the President in his capacity as the Executive Authority of Ghana under the 1992 Constitution and not as the flag-bearer of any political party. Should he think that I am talking too much and not doing my job the simple solution is for him to have me removed from office. Until then he should leave me alone to continue to exercise the independent duties of my office in accordance with my oath before Parliament and my oath at my appointment as the Special Prosecutor.

Who is really sleeping on the job when it comes to dealing with the canker of corruption? Heads of institutions wantonly disregard statutory requests made by the Office of the Special Prosecutor for information and production of documents to assist in the investigation of corruption and corruption-related offences. Public officers have been charged, arraigned before the High Court and their pleas taken only for them to return to their workplaces and work normally as though they have never been suspected of committing any corruption offences. Despite all the powers conferred on the Office of the Special Prosecutor by the law, when heads of institutions continually refuse or fail to support the fight against the canker of corruption by not vigorously applying regulations intended to aid the fight against corruption and other crimes, they ultimately undermine the work and impact of the Office of the Special Prosecutor.

Members of Parliament who wish to gain exception from investigation and possible prosecution for suspected corruption offences will not succeed by applying bi-partisan pressure upon the Office of the Special Prosecutor. Alleging that there is a tall list for possible prosecution of parliamentarians only enables the creation of an artificial bi-partisan smoke screen for purposes of unduly delaying or running away from justice for those accused of the commission of corruption offences. The only way to get the first Special Prosecutor out of office in a bi-partisan manner is by impeachment or to allow the appropriate independent constitutional institution to do so.

To correct recent factual misrepresentations in media and on WhatsApp, herewith my response to assure the public that while I occupy the role of Special Prosecutor, crime will always be treated as crime and no political party card can act as an insurance against investigating and/or prosecuting any offences that fall under my mandate under the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959).

The Office of the Special Prosecutor is Ghana’s new anti-corruption agency. With its prosecutorial powers, it is being seen by many as an expected solution to the problem of corruption in Ghana. However, the nation’s inability to adequately resource and guarantee the independence of law enforcement from politics has affected the fight against corruption over the years. Unless there is a change of attitude in practice, the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act may soon be seen by the public to be, like its predecessors, a delusion and not an achievement.

Ghana cannot fight the canker of corruption and corruption-related offences when people expect the Special Prosecutor to have regard to the personalities involved in the commission of corruption offences instead of treating every crime as crime without fear or favour, affection or ill will. I stated clearly on oath at my vetting for this Office that I was not going to tolerate any interference or obstruction from anybody or organ of Government other than the courts of law in the performance of the independent functions of my office.

In accepting the position of Special Public Prosecutor, I thank the President and the Attorney General sincerely for the trust they have put in me and in my capabilities. Above all I also wish to thank and assure Ghanaians that I will do my best to vindicate the trust that the whole nation put in me at my nomination and nomination approval hearing. Be assured that I will not be daunted from prosecuting all corruption crimes once a suspected offender is established by investigations to have committed offences prosecutable in the national interest. Let us put Ghana First!

I would like to thank my well-wishers for their outpouring of support, and I am grateful for each one who has expressed a desire to attend my nomination hearing in person. However, the Parliamentary Service letter has an express “Notes for Nominees” attachment that limits the number of supporters of the Nominee that will be allowed at the venue for the Public Hearing. I have therefore distributed my limited invitations on a first call basis, whether I knew the person or not. I hope others will participate in the nomination hearing by viewing the event on television. Regardless of the outcome, I am humbled to know from the endless calls made from across the country that the President’s nomination for the Special Public Prosecutor has overwhelming support.

Despite my preference for strengthening the traditional, common law and conventional independence of the Attorney General under our Anglo-American-Ghanaian system of jurisprudence; upon my examination, analysis and critique of the provisions of the Office of the Special Prosecutor Bill, 2017, I have concluded that the establishment of a permanent Office of the Special Prosecutor is legal under Article 88 of the 1992 Constitution so long as it is done under the authority of the Attorney General. However, the feasibility of establishing a permanent Office of the Special Prosecutor to deal specifically with corruption and related offences by law is premised on the exemplary moral compass and integrity of the Executive Authority personified by the elected President and his determination to give law enforcement authorities, including the Attorney General, the expected constitutional support to operate strictly in accordance with their oaths of office to be fair, transparent and impartial in the execution of their duties without fear or favour, affection or ill will. Absent such a President and public officers, no number of enactments can achieve the objective of fighting systemic corruption in Ghana. My hope is that this paper will help civil society, the active public, the Government and Parliament to give due consideration to all the factors that need to be taken into account to make the Office of the Special Prosecutor Bill, 2017 now being discussed by the Committee of Parliament during the vacation, capable of being enacted in a bi-partisan manner when Parliament resumes in October 2017.

Is someone sabotaging the President’s fight against corruption? The current enactment of the Office of the Special Public Prosecutor Bill, 2017, raises questions around the inclusion of Clause 3 sub-clause 4 of the Bill. If, as it states, the Special Prosecutor is not to investigate and prosecute corruption offences relating to the Public Procurement Act, 2003 and the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 – this lays down vague and ambiguous exceptions that can be exploited. Whoever inserted the sub-clause is legalizing an undefined species of corruption as not being serious enough to warrant prosecution ever or at all. The Bill before Parliament also has consequential amendments in Section 78 (1) that remove the offence of corruption from the jurisdiction of the Economic and Organised Crime Office. Who will then investigate and prosecute categories of corruption offences by public officers and politically exposed persons not meeting the standards in Clause 3(4)? We cannot justify any form of corruption. Let us take a keen interest in the passage of the Bill through Parliament so that Ghanaians are not short-changed in the actualization of the promise by the President to fight corruption as corruption, and crime as crime.